Washington, DC (June 29, 2026) – The United States Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Chatrie v. United States, a landmark case challenging the constitutionality of geofence warrants that allow police to sweep up Google “Location History” data from anyone near a crime scene in search of a suspect. The Court held that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital location data, even for short periods, and even though a third party holds that data in the cloud. While the Court established that a Fourth Amendment search occurred, it did not determine whether this specific geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements, remanding the case back to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings.
Chatrie arose from the investigation of a bank robbery in Richmond, Virginia. Lacking suspects, the police tried a new tactic—a geofence warrant—which made Google search the Location History of hundreds of millions of users so law enforcement could trawl that data at will. This practice flips constitutional protections upside down: search first, suspicion later. As counsel for Mr. Chatrie since 2019, NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center has always stated that this data is private, that it belongs to individual users, and that it requires a valid warrant to search. They have argued that geofence warrants are a radical departure from traditional warrants, lacking both probable cause and particularity, and are akin to the reviled general warrants of old.
The Court ruled that a search occurred, but did not decide whether the warrant was constitutional, referring that question and others back to the Fourth Circuit. In reaching its decision, the Court stated unequivocally “That database is new, but the principle covering it is not: That principle is instead the one our history has given. The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual.” The Court refused to apply the so-called “third-party doctrine,” a rule from the 1970s that records stored by companies were not private and did not require a warrant to search.
“This landmark decision makes clear that location information is deeply private and demands constitutional protection, and that advances in technology must not erode the guiding principles that our country was founded upon,” said NACDL President Andrew Birrell. “We are grateful that the Court recognized that geofence warrants open the door to unprecedented government surveillance and must be checked with constitutional guardrails.”
“The Court decisively held that people have a privacy right in their personal data—no matter how short the timeframe or whether the information is held by a tech company. The government cannot sidestep the Fourth Amendment by labeling location history and other cell phone data as ‘third party’ records. The Court definitively recognized that accessing this data is a search that triggers constitutional protection,” said Michael Price, counsel for Mr. Chatrie and Litigation Director for NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center. “We look forward to returning to the Fourth Circuit to ensure those protections are fully enforced in the digital age.”
“Mass searches of location data have no place in a free society,” said NACDL Executive Director Lisa Wayne. “The Court has affirmed what the Fourth Amendment has always required: the government cannot cast a digital dragnet over our lives. Unchecked access to data that tracks our every movement and intrudes on our most private moments is not something a free society can tolerate. This is a victory for the fight against government surveillance and for the principle that our digital lives belong to us.”
Adam G. Unikowsky of Jenner & Block, LLP argued in the Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Chatrie. He stated: “The Supreme Court’s decision persuasively explains why obtaining Location History is a Fourth Amendment search. The Court’s decision is an important step in protecting digital privacy.”
Geremy Kamens, the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, who also represented Mr. Chatrie along with Laura Koenig and Patrick Bryant, stated: “We are gratified that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that having a cell phone in one's pocket is not a license for around-the-clock government surveillance, and we look forward to vindicating Mr. Chatrie's Fourth Amendment rights on remand.”
Contacts
Jessie Diamond, Deputy Director, Public Affairs and Communications, (202) 465-7647 or jdiamond@nacdl.org
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's many thousands of direct members in 28 countries – and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling up to 40,000 attorneys – include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness and promoting a rational and humane criminal legal system.
